NATIONAL NEWS

Infrastructurist: What’s the Problem With a National Infrastructure Bank? Capitalism (And Politics)
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2010/02/08/whats-the-problem-with-a-national-infrastructure-bank-capitalism-and-politics/
The idea of a National Infrastructure Bank has plenty going for it: It could streamline and  facilitate necessary projects, secure credit at low rates, and help leverage private funds to create the long-term investment that’s needed to see big projects through to completion.  Still, the concept isn’t without its problems. And the biggest problem, in fact, is right there in the name: Bank. If it’s a bank, then it needs to generate revenue, and therefore make investments that repay themselves. And of course, not all infrastructure projects worth funding are ones that will be rolling in profits.

HuffPo: Where were CEOs in the SOTUS?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-hindery-jr/where-were-ceos-in-the-so_b_454917.html
...The five government incentives that would most immediately get CEOs in the U.S. back hiring and investing would see the administration and Congress...  4. Funding a 10-year program of significant public investment to upgrade and rebuild our nation's major infrastructure, to include a new National Infrastructure Bank and incentives for private funding of public infrastructure, which would immediately create 18,000 new jobs for each $1 billion we spend.

Politico: Transit bills fight climate change
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32656.html
...In the interim, the House can also do more to address global warming by investing in rebuilding and renewing America’s infrastructure. Transportation accounts for one-third of the nation’s output of carbon pollution, and by giving people more commuting choices, we can decrease congestion, curb emissions and reduce the amount of money people spend on gasoline. They shouldn’t have to burn a gallon of gas to buy a gallon of milk.

STATE NEWS

Houston Chronicle: Mayor: Metro riders come first
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6856178.html
As Mayor Annise Parker awaits reports from transition committees studying the Metropolitan Transit Authority, fundamental questions loom about how the agency should deliver and pay for services and its role in shaping regional growth and development.  Parker has signaled that she is not wedded to conventional wisdom about Metro, even suggesting eliminating fares to increase lagging ridership. While acknowledging that Metro would have to cope with the loss of fare revenues — $66 million in 2009, about 20 percent of its expenses — she said it is a discussion the agency needs to have.

ADN: Does Alaska need a transportation permanent fund?
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/147611
One of the state House leaders is proposing a big change in how road and other transportation projects are paid for in our state.  State Rep. Peggy Wilson, R-Wrangell and chair of the House Transportation Committee, talked to reporters this morning about a proposed constitutional amendment to create a new permanent fund, just for transportation.